109 comments:

Poor Lamar Alexander. He and the other Republicans have worked so hard to extend the hand of bipartisanship across the aisle to work with the Democrats to provide real solutions to America's problems: Cut taxes on the highest income earners -- sure to eliminate the deficit, which seems a problem only now, in hindsight -- let the marketplace solve the health care insurance problem, and Drill, Baby -- DRILL!!!

FLS, that might be interpreted as an attempt to change the subject from Obama's disgusting behavior.

Let's not get carried away defending Lamar's well thought out attempt to increase wealth production by freeing the wealthy and middle class and small business owners with lower taxation, regulation ,etc. Yes, even merely tax cuts for the rich tend to decrease the deficit, but that's not relevant.

At this point, we're just wanting the freedom to talk about this stuff without the white house raining down on us their tears of agony and offense. Kinda annoying. I would have laughed at Bush if he had refused to appear on PBS or ABS just because they have an editorial perspective he doesn't agree with. What a cowardly thing that would be. If Bush had announced that Helen Thomas is not a journalist because she pushes a liberal POV... he'd have been some creep.

First, there is no Obama enemies list, although the initial page's worth of disgusting Republican behavior, includes a heartfelt suggestion not to emulate the Nixon White House. Then Obama's bill of particulars follows.

First, Obama had the temerity to meet directly with the heads of major corporations, rather than deal solely with the US Chamber of Commerce. Some of these corporations had the nerve to quit the USCofC, because they disagreed with official USCofC positions. I am not sure when the Constitution authorized the USCofC as the sole conduit between the President and Corporate America, but obviously the USCofC has been taken down a notch.

Then, Medicare wanted to vet official Humana communications with its Medicare enrollees, lest Humana propaganda be mistaken for official government policy. Why not use tax dollars to fearmonger our oldsters?

And the list goes on and on.

bush was a better man, and a better president, than Obama

Although Lamar does not mention him by name, Bush comes in for his share of scorn as well:

The President [Obama] has not stopped blaming banks and investment houses for the financial meltdown even as it has become clear that [the Republican-controlled ]Congress [and Mr. Opportunity Society Bush ] played a huge role, too, by encouraging Americans to borrow money for houses they couldn’t afford.

The President [Obama] has not stopped blaming banks and investment houses for the financial meltdown even as it has become clear that [the Republican-controlled ]Congress [and Mr. Opportunity Society Bush ] played a huge role, too, by encouraging Americans to borrow money for houses they couldn’t afford.

If you're looking for who to blame for the subprime meltdown, Bush is WAY down the list - after:the Community Reinvestment Act, which Clinton signed; Barney Frank, who wanted to "roll the dice some more" with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Chris Dodd, who took Countrywide sweetheart mortgages to look the other way; a Democrat-controlled oversight committee who accused anyone questioning the cooked books of Fannie & Freddie of being racist;and ACORN, which sued and threatened any bank that didn't lend to uncreditworthy minorities (I believe they even used an attorney by the name of Obama for one of the suits).

Um, gee, I really hate to say this, but the Dems have controlled Congress since 2007.

But Lamar was talking about the Congress that "encourag[ed] Americans to borrow money for houses they couldn’t afford." That was the 2001-2006 Congress. The meltdown was already in full swing by the time the Dems took hold of Congress -- HSBC was first to acknowledge there was a problem in February, 2007, by writing down $10.5 billion of subprime mortgage-backed securities.

FLS - the [Republican Controlled Congress]? Um, gee, I really hate to say this, but the Dems have controlled Congress since 2007.

But he can still remember Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush. Oh, and I forgot Darth Cheney. And that is what counts.

I do find it interesting that FLS doesn't believe that his godhead, Obama, could possibly have an enemies list, a couple days after the Obama Administration declared war on Fox News. And who can forget the Administration's attempt to police blogs? After all, some of the stuff they were saying about the Dear Leader was not totally complimentary.

At least, so far, we haven't seen any politically motivated IRS audits (though we have seen a lot of politically motivated dismissals of criminal charges by the DoJ and tax evasion by the IRS). That is one trick from the Clinton Administration that hasn't appeared yet (remember, Hillary and her people pulled hundreds of Republican FBI files well before this in her husband's Administration).

So, we may be lucky here, and the Obama Administration may limit itself to just looking petty in its disputes with its critics, without actually crossing the legal line in regards to its critics, as the Nixon and Clinton Administrations did.

But Lamar was talking about the Congress that "encourag[ed] Americans to borrow money for houses they couldn’t afford." That was the 2001-2006 Congress. The meltdown was already in full swing by the time the Dems took hold of Congress -- HSBC was first to acknowledge there was a problem in February, 2007, by writing down $10.5 billion of subprime mortgage-backed securities.

Well, maybe, but you ignore that President Bush started pushing for reform in this area early on, and kept doing so throughout his Administration, and the biggest players opposing him were the Democrats, esp. Frank and Dodd.

Though I don't know why this is relevant to the discussion about Obama's enemies list.

fls, you are right, the housing crisis did not start when Pelosi started her run in congress. It started wayyyyy back when ACORN lawyers in Chicago, one of which is now our president, sued banks to give idiotic loans out.

I don't really agree with Lamar Alexander on everything, but it's not really relevant to Obama's enemies list or his treatment of journalism. I want news organizations pro and con to be able to discuss both sides of Lamar and OBama's record, without the white house trying to interefere with the journalism profession.

and I think your point that tax cuts increase the deficit is proven unreliable at best, but again, irrelevant to me right now. we certainly do not have tax cuts right now, and we certainly have an exploding deficit. The Democrats OWN this economy. Obama promised he had the skills to handle this exact problem. He can't, and I understand the temptation to claim it's the GOP's fault, but the GOP did not put those promises in Obama's mouth.

I do find it interesting that FLS doesn't believe that his godhead, Obama, could possibly have an enemies list, a couple days after the Obama Administration declared war on Fox News.

The Obama administration declared war on Fox News? I can only compare that to FDR's declaration of war on Japan -- it would only recognize reality. News organizations worthy of the name simply do not host and promote anti-administration rallies. FNC is the GOP's propaganda arm.

the biggest players opposing him were the Democrats, esp. Frank and Dodd.

And Democrats in the minority are more powerful than Republicans in the majority. I understand this, but I don't know why Republicans are proud of it.

The first Congressman to get housing finance reform even out of committee was Nancy Pelosi.

Though I don't know why this is relevant to the discussion about Obama's enemies list.

It's part of Lamar's argument for its existence. Read the article Althouse linked.

I think your point that tax cuts increase the deficit is proven unreliable at best

The deficit as a percent of GDP decreased from Truman to Carter, then started going up under Reagan, plateaued and dropped with Clinton, then started climbing again with W.

Obama's suit had nothing to do with lowering lending standards. That was long before the industry ginned up Alt-A and subprime loans. Banks simply did not want to lend money in minority neighborhoods, no matter how credit-worthy the borrower. Laws were passed that banks had to make loans wherever they took deposits. Banks resisted. Rejected homebuyers sued to force them to obey the law.

You guys make me laugh with your anti-Obama sentiments. I think the country is really divided right now, in fact, I keep thinking the country is more divided than ever. But then a friend asked me what it was like during Viet Nam. Wasn't it as divided back then, he asked. I had to think. It must have been, with Kent State and all the rest of it, but I honestly can't remember it being this bad and this antagonistic, one side against the other. But it must have been. Could it be that my 18-year-old perspective was so different in 1971 than my 56-year-old perspective in 2009 that it just seems worse now? I don't know.

No, FLS doesn't understand the connection between tax rates and revenues, but two data points should should give him the idea:

0% tax rate = 0 revenue100% tax rate = 0 revenue

The maximum collected revenue is a number greater than zero; consequently mathematical logic demands that raising tax rates can increase revenue or decrease it, depending on what the rate currently is.

Since deficit = revenue - spending, it seems we can create a deficit by spending too much money, not just by collecting too little.

The President and Congress will raise taxes, and vastly increase our spending, and FLS will of course support both, while criticizing Bush for running much smaller deficits.

Sorry to belabor the point, but FLS is a slow learner about some things.

"I do find it interesting that FLS doesn't believe that his godhead, Obama, could possibly have an enemies list, a couple days after the Obama Administration declared war on Fox News."

Well, it might be a list but not a list-list, you know.

"The Obama administration declared war on Fox News? I can only compare that to FDR's declaration of war on Japan -- it would only recognize reality."

So FOX News declared war first? (Or is that war-war?) Maybe back when Obama the candidate refused to attend a debate hosted by FOX?

"News organizations worthy of the name simply do not host and promote anti-administration rallies. FNC is the GOP's propaganda arm."

You've been extremely resonable lately, fls. So I want to ask... do you really believe this?

When everyone was politely ignoring the first Tea Party rallies (I'm assuming you're talking about Tea Party rallies) does a *real* news organization report them or not? Does a real news organization give people information they want? In that respect FNC is more legitimate than the other networks are. And the truth is that the earliest rallies were equal opportunity. Republican politicians showed up expecting a war welcome and got booed for it.

I also find it a bit... spurious... to imply that the other news networks did not, over the eight years of the previous administration, ever undertake anti-administration actions. If there is a difference it's that they weren't as honest about it when they decided what to keep in and what to leave out of reports.

Watch this and tell me what you think of it. Answer the question that Penn is asking himself because his hero screamed at him for feeling that his moral responsibility is to tell the truth. Is he right? Or is his moral responsibility to shun the unclean and silence the wicked? (If you watch you'll see how seriously he considers it.)

I hear a whole lot... don't listen! don't listen!... because FNC or someone else presents a particular view point. Don't listen! And Obama is doing exactly what liberals like Tom Smothers in the clip demand and *enforce* on other people... don't GO and don't TALK. Shun the unclean or you are unclean, too.

That's what I see.

So Penn goes on Glenn Beck, not because he agrees but so he can tell the truth, and he gets attacked for it by a friend. Sarah Palin is supposed to go on Oprah when she's got every right to hold a grudge... she won't hold that grudge... but Oprah *fans* are angry! Unclean, Oprah! Unclean!

"the biggest players opposing him were the Democrats, esp. Frank and Dodd."

fls: "And Democrats in the minority are more powerful than Republicans in the majority. I understand this, but I don't know why Republicans are proud of it."

No, but Congressional Republicans had no motivation to cut any sort of spending or oppose stupid policies. This is why, very much why, when they showed up at the earliest Tea Parties they got booed. It's also the biggest reason why they *lost* the majority they had.

Bush warned of the potential problem but didn't follow through. His fault. He doesn't get a pass on that. He doesn't get a pass on that even though he had to chose between pushing on unpopular domestic agendas and issues or paying attention to the war.

But Frank and Dodd and whatnot don't get a pass either, nor Acorn for that matter, nor all the numerous pushers of "social justice" at the expense of financial responsibility and reality.

It's Li'l Rock meets The Second City. What the Hell else did you expect? And like the Lefty lawyers from Li'l Rock, this administration will make Nixon look like penny ante.

former law student said...

Poor Lamar Alexander. He and the other Republicans have worked so hard to extend the hand of bipartisanship across the aisle to work with the Democrats to provide real solutions to America's problems: Cut taxes on the highest income earners -- sure to eliminate the deficit, which seems a problem only now, in hindsight -- let the marketplace solve the health care insurance problem, and Drill, Baby -- DRILL!!!

I thought Bambi and the rest of the Maoist Chicago thugs were supposed to be, like, post-partisan, dude. They were going to be uniters, not dividers.

former law student said...

And Democrats in the minority are more powerful than Republicans in the majority. I understand this, but I don't know why Republicans are proud of it.

Ever since Tommy Daschle started playing fast and loose with the Senate rules, any minority has incredible power.

PS In case you have forgotten (and you obviously have, fls), the Republicans controlled the Senate for only 4 years of the Bush 43 administration.

I tried to post a comment but Blogger shot me down. I must be on the enemies list.

That'll teach you to mock the Great Oz.

mikeb302000 said...

You guys make me laugh with your anti-Obama sentiments. I think the country is really divided right now, in fact, I keep thinking the country is more divided than ever. But then a friend asked me what it was like during Viet Nam.

Enemies List? Look, Nixon had an enemies list. It was a secret, until he and his minions got caught.

This administration is transparent. It is open. It is honest. There is no secret enemies list. The administration is being transparent, open, and honest with the American people. They are naming their enemies in full view of the public.

This open, transparent, and honest policy is the only campaign promise kept. It is all part of that hopey changey thing.

If you really look at Obama's character--not at his speeches, but at the incidents in his life where he has acted personally--he is not a good guy. Two telling incidents: His first opportunity for elected office came when one of his political mentors helped him to run for an assembly seat that she was leaving in order to run for Congress (the first fundraiser was held in Ayers home--"just some guy I knew in the neighborhood"). When she failed to get the congresional nomination and ran for assembly again, Obama brought in friends from Harvard Law and found ways to challenge enough of her petitions to get her off the ballot.

Second incident: when he couldn't afford to buy the house withthe five fireplaces and 5,000 bottle wine cellar, he brought Tony Rezko over to look at the house and next thing you know Rezko had bought the backyard of the property in a coordinated transaction so that Obama could afford the rest. Rezko was at that time widely reported to be under invesitigation by the US Attorney for influence peddling and bribery. Obama was then a sitting US Senator.

When the Republicans take over in 2012, they are now free to freeze out all news organization not named Fox or Breitbart. If being hostile to the government's agenda deprives you of the title of news organization, then what is a news organization depends on who is in power.

At this point, people need to realize that Obama and his supporters honestly believe that everyone who disagrees wtih them is a racist and a fascist. When you think that about your enemies, there really aren't any methods that are too harsh. I honestly don't think that there is anything Obama could do, no matter how awful, that his supporters wouldn't support him on. As they say, desparate times call for desparate measures.

We are very lucky in that Obama is only supported by about 40% of the country. But understand, to that 40% nothing Obama does to the right won't be excused and or justified. And when Obama loses in 2012 that 40% is going to get even more angry and paranoid and hateful. It is a terrible situation. What do you do when a sizable portion of your society completely loses its mind?

Depends upon whether the Senator in question is Roland Burris or Lamar Alexander. Of course, Alexander does have the blemish on his record of having worked in the Nixon Administration. Ray Blanton made that an issue. What a winner Blanton turned out to be.

"I agree that Obama is being foolish here, however, with respect to Fox."

That is the thing. You don't like Fox. Okay. Well I don't consider the New York Times, after Steven Glass and their other hoax scandals and their refusal to cover things like ACORN and Van Jones, to be much of a newsoutlet anymore. Nor do I consider CBS news, after the Bush memo hoax to be a news outlet either. I am sure you disagree. And who knows maybe you are right.

The question is do we really want to have politicians start playing this game and using the power of access to decide who can be a real news outlet and who can't? I don't think we do. I think Obama and his toadies ought to shut the hell up about Fox and worry about you know actually doing their jobs.

Good Morning! Do Y'all know how caa-raaazy you old white people in the echo chamber sound? While you compare enemy lists, and puff up your news sources-defending what you once derided,the country moves on without you.... see ya in 2012!

With an ongoing war in Iraq, unemployment skyrocketing, the economy in shambles, no direction in Afghanistan, Obamacare and cap and trade on life support the only policy that Barry has time to formulate is on how to handle FNC?

Considering that Obama was soliciting his minions to forward the White House any emails that spoke in less than worshipful terms of his health care, I don't need much prodding to believe he doesn't have such a list.

Saying I don't like Fox is rather like saying I don't like to travel in Portugal. I don't watch TV, or read many newspapers.

But I agree with your premise. In addition, the press that are covering the White House should actually be asking relevant questions, not just preening in front of the Camera saying Look at me! I'm in DC! I'm Big Time. That they do not ask questions is a problem that long predates the current administration.

"But I agree with your premise. In addition, the press that are covering the White House should actually be asking relevant questions, not just preening in front of the Camera saying Look at me! I'm in DC! I'm Big Time. That they do not ask questions is a problem that long predates the current administration."

That is true. But you have to remember journalists are generally ignorant and poorly educated. There is one area of America where the Ivy Leagues still dominate, the major media. They all went to the same schools and got the same dogmatic horrible education given out by the Ivys these days. None of those people can think or know very much. And many of them got there by being an idiot son/daughter or banging the right producer. And none of them have ever done anything in the world besides go to school and pontificate. Worse still, they only talk to each other and they all think exactly the same way. So, it is not suprising they have a difficult time asking important questions.

The gift that President Obama has used since he was picked by American Marxist leaning groups for a fast track promotion is his LOVING SMILE. That talent is to love an audience into trusting him, which allows Obama to hate and destroy the American way of life according to his sponsors master plan, while everyone watching wonders how such a sweet guy could be doing that to us. His enemies list is all of us. His friends list are the Maoists cadres around the world.

I see people say Althouse is an idiot and I've always disagreed with that. After seeing this post, I am no longer sure.

To be so deep in the tank with Republican bullshit like this you have to be dumb or dishonest.

In Althouse's case, I think it's more that she is just plain foolish than dumb.

Even Pat Buchanan, who fricken worked for Nixon, doesn't buy it:

It is the most idiotic comparison I’ve ever seen. Barack Obama won 95 percent of Washington DC, he comes in with both houses Congress behind him, the media love him, the country loves him. Nixon came in with both houses of Congress against him, he probably got 8 percent of the vote in Washington DC, the media loathed him. … I don’t see any comparison between Obama and Nixon whatsoever. … [T]here’s no comparison. Barack Obama’s got enormous press support, he’s got problems with Fox News but for heaven’s sakes there is no comparison here.

I am not sure who is dumber, you or Buchanan. Buchanan is saying Obama is not Nixon because the press likes Obama. Well so what? That doesn't say anything about how Obama is acting with respect to the minority that doesn't toe the line. The accusation is that Obama has an enemies list like Nixon. And Buchanan's response is "but a lot of the media likes Obama". One does not follow the other.

"So, when Bush and Rove criticizes NBC that was fine. When Obama's team criticizes the sleazoid propgandistic FauxNews Channel, that is evil and wrong. "

When did Bush ever say they were "not a news organization"? Criticizing coverage is different than saying they are not a news organization and shouldn't ever be listened to. Further, is it your position now that Bush was right for saying that? Again, as I said above, I really don't think it is a good idea for politicians to get into the game of deciding who in the country is worthy of having a voice.

John, this line of attack is so wrong is so many ways that there are many perspectives to find it venal, dumb and wrong. (Simple concept, really)

Buchanan has his. I have mine.

My reasons this is an idiotic line of attack:

1) Nixon actually kept an enemies list and he broke the law numerous times in multiple abuses of power to attack people on that list. You might want to look up Daniel Ellsberg's experiences with Nixon.

2) These dumbasses have gone from seeing the White House criticize their attackers to the leap over logic that Obama is Nixonian.

3) It's funny that Republicans would use a comparison to another Republican to attack a Democrat. Dumbasses.

4) This is just more of an effort to throw anything at the wall and hope it sticks.

"1) Nixon actually kept an enemies list and he broke the law numerous times in multiple abuses of power to attack people on that list. You might want to look up Daniel Ellsberg's experiences with Nixon."

True. And Nixon was thrown out of office for it. If Obama ever goes after his enemies by breaking the law, he should be thrown out of office. No one is saying he should be thrown out of office. The problem is that when you are the President and you have access to that kind of power, you are at best creating a terrible impression and at worst playing with fire when you create a list of people you don't like and send your minions out to marginalize them. That is clearly what Obama is doing here. It does not rise to the level of Nixon. But it is clearly Nixonesque and people out to criticize him for it, which is exactly what they are doing.

"2) These dumbasses have gone from seeing the White House criticize their attackers to the leap over logic that Obama is Nixonian."

He is Nixonian. There are degrees of Nixonian. To say someone is Nixonian means that you act in some way like Nixon not that you are as bad or do everything like him. The fact is that Emmanual and Axelrod and Mao loving Anita Dunne are pretty nasty people who are unafraid to use Presidential power to go after people they don't like. Going after private entities and citizens who criticize you and trying to marginalize and silence them is Nixonian. Just because it is against people you don't like, doesn't make it right. Again, in 2013 when Rebublicans try this kind of stuff, you might want to have some moral credibility to object.

"3) It's funny that Republicans would use a comparison to another Republican to attack a Democrat. Dumbasses. "

Why? Nixon was a bad guy. Everyone knows that. When someone a President acts like Nixon, both sides ought to point it out. Johnson was a Democrat and used the FBI and CIA to spy on his enemies. Do you think that the Dems should have no right to point back to the misuses of power under Johnson and Kennedy when criticizing Republicans? That is a very odd way of viewing things at the very least.

"4) This is just more of an effort to throw anything at the wall and hope it sticks."

By whom? Obama? Obama is the President. He controls the agenda. It is his toadies who started railing about Fox News. If it is anyone who is throwing things up agains the wall and desparately trying to get the public to pay attention to anything but the 10% unemployment, the continueing recession, the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, the total indecision about Afghanistan, and his complete ineptitude in dealing with Iran, it is Obama. The President can only talk about and use his credibility about so many things. Yet, during two wars and a recession, he choses to use that credibility going after a private newschannel makes him appear both Nixonian and desparate.

"Fox News is really not a news organization. They routinely misinform their viewers."

Unlike CBS who ran fake memos to try to tip an election, MSNBC who ran "quotes" by Rush Limbaugh they got off of wikipedia, CNN who made a deal with Saddam Hussain to softpedal their coverage in return for access and the NYT that has had two sparate instances of reporters making up numerous stories out of thin air.

"Considering that Obama was soliciting his minions to forward the White House any emails that spoke in less than worshipful terms of his health care, I don't need much prodding to believe he doesn't have such a list."

"Personally, I think the White House should continue these criticisms of this propaganda organ of the Republican Party posing as a news organization.

Liars like Fox deserve no better."

They are liars because why? Because you say so? If they are liars poisoning people's minds, perhaps we should just shut them down. Or maybe send a mob over to their offices and burn the place down. If you honestly beleive that they are such a threat to the country that they deserve the attention and scorn of the President, then what means isn't justified?

You sit here and say the Republicans are paranoid. But then in the next breath say "liars like Fox deserve no better". Do you even listen to yourself? In the end you seem to have a real problem with anyone who disagrees with you having a voice and no problem with using the government to do something about it. But, Republicans are paranoid not to trust you and people like you with power. OK.

So of course MSNBC and CNN, with their rabid pro-Obama cheerleading, are not news organizations, according to you, correct?

Well, let's see: Did CNN send Soledad O'Brien out to host any pro-Obama rallies, as FNC sent Greta Von Susteren out to host an anti-administration rally? I think not. Soledad's so dang cute I'm sure I would have remembered that.

the Republicans controlled the Senate for only 4 years of the Bush 43 administration.

You're right, I forgot that a Republican Senator got disgusted and bolted the party, effectively giving the Democrats a one-vote majority for 16 months.

When she failed to get the congresional nomination and ran for assembly again, Obama brought in friends from Harvard Law and found ways to challenge enough of her petitions to get her off the ballot.

Yes, when Alice Palmer went back on her word and decided to run again for the State Senate, the petition circulators she picked filled petitions with names from the phone book, passing them around a table so their forged signatures would alternate, making them look less obviously faked.

The unique Harvard Law strategy was to "check the names against the voter roll," and strike out any whose signatures do not match.

Unless you support electoral fraud, I don't see how you can criticize Obama for this. This is the same method used to strike the fake registrants that faithless ACORN circulators put on their lists.

And while it is true that Mrs. Rezko bought the corner lot of the two-lot Obama property, and sold back a strip so that the Obama's could have a side yard, the wine cellar can hold only 1000 bottles, not 5000. The two MDs who owned the Obama property hoped to cash in by selling the second lot to someone who wanted to build a new house in the long-ago built-out South Kenwood neighborhood.

Come to think of it, the only recent Presidential contender who has used the power of their office to punish their enemies, the way Nixon did, is Sarah Palin, when she again tried to get Trooper Wooten fired. But there is no "Palin is like Nixon" tag here.

And I just can't imagine Obama's AG threatening anyone with putting his boss's tit in a big fat wringer, the way Mitchell threatened Carl Bernstein's boss Katharine Graham.

"Come to think of it, the only recent Presidential contender who has used the power of their office to punish their enemies, the way Nixon did, is Sarah Palin, when she again tried to get Trooper Wooten fired. But there is no "Palin is like Nixon" tag here."

Yeah because tazering a teenage boy shouldn't be a firing offense. Liberals even love wife beating dirty cops if they have the right enemies.

As someone who is very concerned about dirty cops and the numerous abuses of the drug war and the scourge of unionized cops in general, it both saddens and disapoints me that liberals, who are normally realiable allies on these issues, will throw all principles overboard when it comes to their hatred of Republicans. Sad, just sad.

"While you can spin Tea Parties as "anti-government," the fact remains they began only after Obama's inauguration."

Well, our 1.4 trillion deficit has only been after Obama's innauguration to. Bush certainly set the stage for a populist revolt. But Obama came in promising to change things and promptly went along with TARP II, the auto bailout and the $700 billion stimulus even though all of them were deeply unpopular and destroyed any fiscal sanity that was left. Obama was supposed to be different. Most people voted for him thinking he was going to be like Clinton. Instead he made things much worse. So, yeah, the populist revolt started in full swing.

"The state troopers investigated every one of Sarah's friends and family's allegations against Wooten, and decided they were worth, at most, a two-week suspension."

And cops would never run a shame investigation to cover up for one of their own? Come on. If a cop in another jurisidiction had tazered his step son and the cops did their own investigation and said "nope nothing here" you would never beleive that. You only do now because Palin is involved.

That is pathetic and you, as one of the more reasonable liberals, here ought to do better than that. That guy was a dirty shitbag and should not have been a cop. Palin did the right thing firing him. If only other governors would make an effort to fire shitbag cops.

Don't sell your soul and your ideals just because you don't like Palin. They surely are worth more than that.

And while you can spin Tea Parties as "anti-administration" they are more properly anti-government.

While you can spin Tea Parties as "anti-government," the fact remains they began only after Obama's inauguration.

Yes, because the spending on things nobody wants is threatening to ruin the country.

Bush gave us TARP.

Bambi has given us porkulus, the GM/Chrysler bailout, and intends to force on us "Medicare Part E", porkulus II, GM/Chrysler II, card check, cap and trade, TARP II, and in 9 months has quadrupled Bush's deficit.

The Tea Parties are collective outrage over stuff that started with TARP, but only got worse. How far in the tank do you have to be not to see this?

Or is everybody who gets their talking points from Kos that stupid?

Or are you Freder or Montaigne in drag?

AlphaLiberal said...

Even Pat Buchanan, who fricken worked for Nixon, doesn't buy it:

You're using Buchanan as a source? This is a guy who sides with Hitler against Churchill.

"While you can spin Tea Parties as "anti-government," the fact remains they began only after Obama's inauguration."

They started out as "honk if you're paying my mortgage."

Far more than a response to Obama they were a response to the economic meltdown, the mortgage buy-out, the irrational stimulous spending, the global warming tax, and now the belief that the claim of budget neutrality for a health care public option is a blatant lie.

Yes, McCain would probably have done the mortgage buy out, too, and certainly the stimulous spending and in all likelihood would have had Tea Parties erupt on him as well. He might not have pushed cap and trade and he probably wouldn't have tried for a public option on health care so maybe the Parties would have died down by now.

The economic meltdown only came mere weeks before the fall election. Of *course* the protests correlate with Obama becomming president.

If the economic situation was getting worse gradually, there wouldn't have been the shock to get people motivated, even with a new president.

And so far the Tea Partiers seem to be right about the irrationality of believing that spending a Trillion dollars willy-nilly would actually help anything.

Here is a superb assessment of Obama press flack Anita Dunn by Krauthammer:

"Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?

The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?"